Appeal No. 1999-0542
Application 08/760,557
provide evidence to support the rejection before us. Instead,
the examiner has shifted the burden to appellants to
demonstrate that the applied prior art does not have the
properties of the claimed invention. We do not believe the
applied prior art is sufficient to shift the burden of
persuasion to appellants.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the examiner’s
first rejection noted above. With respect to the second
rejection noted above, we find that Sumi does not overcome the
deficiencies of the applied prior art discussed above.
Therefore, we also do not sustain the examiner’s second
rejection.
With respect to the third rejection listed above, the
examiner cites Bost as teaching a multi-layer metalization
made up of an aluminum layer, a titanium layer and a titanium
nitride layer. The examiner finds that Bost teaches the
claimed invention except for the vacuum chamber. As noted
above, the examiner cites Ong to meet the vacuum chamber
aspects of the claimed invention. The examiner cites Watanabe
and Nicolet as teaching the interchangeability of refractory
metals and metal nitrides [answer, pages 11-15].
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007